Media Review: Trump’s Forced Smiles Conceal Deep Anxiety as Rising Star Mamdani Threatens Political Narrative

Media Review: Trump’s Forced Smiles Conceal Deep Anxiety as Rising Star Mamdani Threatens Political Narrative

    Tuesday, November 25, 2025   No comments

In an apparent display of civility, former U.S. President Donald Trump met newly elected New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani in the Oval Office on November 21, 2025—two figures who, despite having branded each other in incendiary terms, posed for cameras with practiced composure. Yet beneath the handshakes and shared jokes, British journalist Michael Day argues in The Independent, lies a far more revealing story: Trump’s calm demeanor and wide, artificial smiles mask a profound unease—an anxiety rooted not just in personal pride, but in the existential threat Mamdani represents to the Republican Party’s political narrative.

Just weeks before the meeting, Trump had dismissed Mamdani as a “100% insane communist,” while Mamdani, an unapologetic democratic socialist, had once labeled Trump a “fascist.” Their ideological chasm could hardly be wider. Yet in Washington, the two avoided direct confrontation, instead exchanging platitudes about their mutual love for New York City and pledges to support its growth. To Day, this surface-level harmony is a carefully constructed illusion—“a mask worn for the cameras”—hiding a deeper tension.

At 34, Mamdani—a Muslim of Indian-Ugandan heritage—has achieved what many deemed improbable: defeating the politically entrenched Cuomo dynasty and capturing City Hall on a platform of bold progressive reform, including rent freezes, universal public services, and aggressive wealth redistribution. For Trump, a man who prides himself on winning and venerates winners, Mamdani’s meteoric rise is not merely impressive—it is unsettling. As Day notes, Trump himself acknowledged Mamdani had waged “an incredible race against very smart people,” a rare admission of respect tinged unmistakably with apprehension.

Why the anxiety? Mamdani’s success signals a new, viable path for the American left: a charismatic, digitally savvy, grassroots-driven socialism that resonates powerfully with younger, multiracial, and working-class voters—exactly the coalition the GOP has struggled to neutralize. His campaign, built around a laser-focused message of lowering the cost of living and leveraging innovative digital outreach, mobilized a broad coalition that defied traditional political expectations. To Trump, whose political dominance has long depended on framing Democrats as elitist, out-of-touch, or extremist, Mamdani’s authenticity and electoral potency disrupt that script. He is not a caricature Trump can easily ridicule—he is a winner, and that makes him dangerous.

Compounding Trump’s unease is a week of personal and political turbulence: although he recently secured massive Saudi investments, he was forced—amid renewed scrutiny of the Epstein case—to release previously withheld documents, a development that reportedly angered and unnerved him. In this fragile moment, Day suggests, Trump could not afford to appear weakened or reactive in front of Mamdani. Instead, he defaulted to deflection and dark humor. When a journalist asked whether he minded Mamdani calling him a fascist, Trump quipped, “I’ve been called worse than fascist”—a line that drew laughter but betrayed strategic evasion.

Yet the stakes extend far beyond Trump’s ego. Day warns that Mamdani’s ascent risks triggering a crisis of identity within the Democratic Party itself. While the progressive left celebrates his victory as vindication, the party’s moderate wing grows increasingly wary of his socialist agenda—fearing a backlash in swing districts and national elections. This internal rift was starkly illustrated the day before the White House meeting, when 86 House Democrats joined Republicans in passing a resolution condemning “the terror of socialism.” To Day, this was a profound misstep: targeting Mamdani-style progressivism, he argues, while ignoring the very real threat of a second Trump term, reveals a party at odds with its own future.

Ultimately, Day concludes, the cordial photo-op between Trump and Mamdani obscures a seismic political shift. Mamdani embodies a new generational energy—one that challenges both Republican hegemony and Democratic orthodoxy. His rise signals the emergence of a new political archetype: pragmatic yet radical, local yet nationally resonant, deeply ideological yet electorally effective.

As Trump watches this young mayor assume power in America’s largest city, he does so not just as a former president—but as a seasoned political predator keenly aware that the rules of the game may be changing. And for the first time in years, it’s not Trump setting the pace.

Academics warn about lCNS chemicals that could be weaponized by state actors

Academics warn about lCNS chemicals that could be weaponized by state actors

    Saturday, November 22, 2025   No comments

Two British academics are warning that rapidly advancing “brain weapons” capable of manipulating consciousness, memory, perception, or behavior are moving from speculation to reality. 

Michael Crowley and Malcolm Dando of Bradford University argue that breakthroughs in neuroscience, AI, and pharmacology are converging to create tools that can coerce, incapacitate, or subtly reshape human cognition.

They note that multiple states are already pursuing this frontier, drawing on a long and troubling record of research into central nervous system (CNS)-acting chemical agents by the United States during and after the Cold War. The academics say the technology has evolved into something far more precise and potentially far more dangerous, while global treaties remain unprepared to contain it.

They argue that the world is approaching a point where the human mind itself could become a battleground, and that protecting scientific integrity now is essential to protecting human autonomy.

Witkoff's Peace Proposal Aimed at Ending the War in Ukraine

Witkoff's Peace Proposal Aimed at Ending the War in Ukraine

    Friday, November 21, 2025   No comments

In a dramatic and highly controversial initiative that has reignited global debate over the future of Ukraine and European security, real estate magnate and Trump adviser Steven Witkoff has unveiled a comprehensive peace proposal aimed at ending the war in Ukraine. First reported by The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, and The New York Times in late November 2025, the 28-point plan — dubbed “Witkoff’s Peace Proposal” — presents a sweeping, U.S.-mediated framework that would require profound concessions from both Ukraine and the West, while offering Russia significant strategic and economic rewards.

At its heart, Witkoff’s proposal seeks to freeze the conflict on terms that would effectively legitimize Russia’s territorial gains while embedding Ukraine into a new, constrained security architecture.

The plan begins with a rhetorical affirmation of Ukraine’s sovereignty — a necessary fig leaf for Western audiences — but quickly pivots to concrete measures that would permanently alter Ukraine’s geopolitical trajectory. Most notably, Ukraine would be constitutionally barred from joining NATO, and NATO would formally pledge never to extend membership to Kyiv. In return, NATO would agree not to station troops or military infrastructure on Ukrainian soil — a direct reversal of current Western policy.

To ensure compliance, the proposal calls for a U.S.-mediated Russia–NATO security dialogue, a U.S.–Russia working group to monitor adherence, and the legal codification of Russian non-aggression pledges toward Ukraine and Europe. Simultaneously, Ukraine’s armed forces would be capped at 600,000 troops — a significant reduction from its current mobilized strength — and it would remain a non-nuclear state, reinforcing its dependence on Western security guarantees rather than self-reliance.

Territorial Concessions: The De Facto Recognition of Annexation

The most contentious element of the proposal lies in its territorial provisions. Ukrainian forces would withdraw from remaining Kyiv-held areas of Donetsk, creating a demilitarized buffer zone that would be “recognized as Russian territory.” While the proposal claims both sides will “not change territorial arrangements by force,” critics argue this is a de facto international recognition of Russia’s illegal annexations of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson — territories seized since 2014 and fully occupied since 2022.

This concession, if implemented, would mark the largest territorial realignment in Europe since the end of World War II — and would fundamentally undermine the post-Cold War order built on the principle that borders cannot be changed by force.

Economic Engine: Frozen Assets as Reconstruction Fuel

Witkoff’s economic plan is equally ambitious. It proposes using $100 billion of frozen Russian assets — held primarily in Western banks — to fund Ukraine’s reconstruction, with the U.S. receiving 50% of the profits generated from those assets. Europe would contribute an additional $100 billion. The remainder of frozen Russian funds would be redirected to joint U.S.–Russia investment projects, signaling a dramatic thaw in economic relations.

The proposal further calls for Russia’s phased reintegration into the global economy, including an invitation to rejoin the G8 — a move that would reverse the Western diplomatic isolation imposed after the 2014 annexation of Crimea. Russia would also guarantee Ukraine’s free commercial use of the Dnieper River and establish agreements on Black Sea grain exports — critical for global food security.

Humanitarian and Political Measures: Elections and Amnesty

On the humanitarian front, the proposal includes a humanitarian committee to oversee prisoner exchanges, repatriation of civilians, and family reunifications — widely welcomed by international NGOs. It also mandates that Ukraine hold elections within 100 days of signing the agreement and grants full wartime amnesty to all parties, including Russian soldiers and Ukrainian collaborators — a provision that has drawn sharp criticism from human rights advocates.

Enforcement: Trump at the Helm

Perhaps the most politically explosive feature is the proposal’s enforcement mechanism: a “Peace Council” chaired by former President Donald Trump, empowered to impose sanctions or penalties for violations. This unprecedented role for a private citizen — and a former U.S. president with known pro-Russia leanings — has drawn bipartisan alarm in Washington. Critics warn it would undermine international law and institutional legitimacy, turning diplomacy into a personal project.

Reactions: Polarization Across the Globe

Reactions have been sharply divided. In Kyiv: Ukrainian officials have called the plan “a surrender disguised as peace,” warning it would cement Russian occupation and betray Ukraine’s sacrifices. President Zelenskyy’s office stated, “No peace that requires Ukraine to abandon its sovereignty or future in Europe can be legitimate.”

In Moscow: Russian state media hailed the proposal as “a realistic and dignified path forward,” with Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova calling it “the first serious Western acknowledgment of Russia’s security needs.”

In Brussels and Washington: NATO allies expressed deep skepticism. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said the plan “violates the spirit of the UN Charter,” while U.S. Senator Bob Menendez called it “a dangerous appeasement that would embolden authoritarianism.” However, some conservative voices in the U.S., including former Trump officials, have praised it as “pragmatic statecraft.”

In Global South: Many non-aligned nations welcomed the economic reintegration of Russia, seeing it as a step toward multipolarity — but questioned why Ukraine bore the full cost of peace.

Witkoff’s proposal is not a negotiation — it is a blueprint for a new European order, one in which military conquest is rewarded with economic rehabilitation and strategic legitimacy. It offers Ukraine security guarantees but at the cost of its sovereignty, neutrality, and future aspirations.

While it may offer a path to an immediate ceasefire — and relief for millions of war-weary civilians — it does so by codifying the results of aggression. As one European diplomat told Reuters: “This isn’t peace. It’s the institutionalization of defeat.”

Whether the proposal gains traction — particularly with Trump’s potential return to the White House in 2025 — remains uncertain. But one thing is clear: Witkoff has forced the world to confront an uncomfortable question: At what price do we end a war — and what kind of world do we create when we do?

Source: The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, The New York Times, Reuters, and BBC as of November 20–21, 2025.

   

US-drafted UNSC Resolution: Why Clarity on a Two-State or One-State Future Is Now an Imperative

US-drafted UNSC Resolution: Why Clarity on a Two-State or One-State Future Is Now an Imperative

    Monday, November 17, 2025   No comments

Western governments routinely condemn what they view as extreme or destabilizing rhetoric in the Israeli-Palestinian arena—especially language asserting Palestinian liberation. Yet these condemnations stand in stark contrast to the words and actions of Israel’s own leaders, who openly work to foreclose every political pathway that would allow Palestinians to exist as a people with rights, sovereignty, and security.

At a moment when Palestinian political identity is questioned by senior Israeli ministers, when settlements continue to expand, and when proposals to forcibly “resettle” Gaza are voiced from within Israel’s governing coalition, Western democracies face a stark choice: either affirm—clearly and publicly—their support for a viable two-state solution, or acknowledge and adopt the only other rights-preserving path, a single democratic state with equal citizenship for all. There are no other defensible options left.

Israel’s Rejection of Palestinian Statehood Has Become Explicit Policy

The latest diplomatic struggle erupted ahead of a crucial UN Security Council vote on a U.S.-drafted resolution regarding post-war Gaza administration. After quiet revisions by Washington inserted language referring to a “credible pathway” to Palestinian statehood, Israel launched an all-out effort to strip the phrase from the text.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made his position unmistakable. Addressing his cabinet, he declared that his opposition to a Palestinian state “has not changed one bit.” Far-right coalition partners went further:

War Minister Israel Katz and Foreign Minister Gideon Saar both vowed that “no Palestinian state will be established.”

 

Itamar Ben-Gvir, a key powerbroker in the coalition, went so far as to dismiss Palestinian identity itself as an “invention.”

 

These statements are not rhetorical flourishes. They align with the expansion of settlements in the West Bank, ongoing displacement of Palestinians, and the continued push from some ministers for the forced removal of Gazans and re-settlement of the Strip by Israelis—policies fundamentally incompatible with any internationally accepted vision for peace.

A UNSC Resolution Exposes the Depth of the Crisis

The U.S. resolution under consideration would authorize:

• a transitional administration in Gaza, and
• a UN-mandated international stabilization force (ISF) supported by eight major regional governments, including Qatar, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Türkiye, Jordan, Pakistan, and Indonesia.

The proposal has satisfied no one. Palestinian factions have urged Algeria to reject it, denouncing the plan as foreign imposition and “another form of occupation.” Meanwhile, Russia submitted a competing resolution that emphasizes stronger guarantees for Palestinian statehood and territorial contiguity.

The internal splits within the Security Council reflect deeper fractures: the international community is attempting to grapple with Israel’s categorical rejection of Palestinian national rights while also navigating Palestinian concerns that external administration may undermine self-determination. 

On the Ground, Violence and Humanitarian Suffering Continue

While high-level diplomacy unfolds, conditions worsen across Palestinian territory.

In the occupied West Bank, Israeli violence and escalating settler attacks have killed seven Palestinians—including six children—within two weeks.

In Gaza, even after a fragile ceasefire, near-daily Israeli strikes since 10 October have killed hundreds. Meanwhile displaced families living in the Mawasi camp struggled through flooded tents after the first winter storm, highlighting the profound humanitarian crisis that persists despite international appeals for protection and aid.

These realities reinforce what Palestinians, human rights organizations, and increasingly international legal experts have long argued: policies that deny meaningful political rights to an entire population inevitably produce cycles of violence, displacement, and humanitarian catastrophe.

The West Cannot Sustain Ambiguity Anymore

For decades, Western governments—particularly the U.S. and EU states—have expressed rhetorical support for a two-state solution even as the material conditions for such a solution were allowed to deteriorate.

Today, Israeli political leaders are not merely undermining the two-state framework; many openly reject it as a matter of principle.

If the two-state solution is impossible, and if permanent occupation or apartheid-like arrangements are morally and legally indefensible, then the only alternative consistent with liberal democratic values is a single democratic state with equal rights for all.

Western governments rarely articulate this basic truth. Instead, they remain caught in a cycle of condemning Palestinian political language while avoiding confrontation with an Israeli leadership dismantling the very foundations of any just peace.

This ambiguity now fuels instability, undermines Western credibility, and leaves Palestinian rights suspended in perpetual limbo.

Two Viable Futures—And Only Two

The world is left with exactly two legitimate pathways that respect Palestinian rights and ensure security for Israelis:

1. A Real, Enforceable Two-State Solution

This would require:

• a sovereign, contiguous Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza;
• an end to settlement expansion and annexation;
• a political horizon backed by international guarantees.

2. A Single Democratic State With Equal Rights

• If Israel continues to rule over the land from the river to the sea, then justice requires equal citizenship, equal legal rights, and equal political representation for all inhabitants—Jewish and Palestinian alike.

Anything else—permanent occupation, fragmented enclaves, demographic engineering, or externally imposed administration—fails every test of legality, morality, and stability.

The Moment of Decision Has Arrived

Israel’s current leadership has made its position clear: no Palestinian state, no political equality, and no credible vision for Palestinian self-determination. Palestinians, meanwhile, continue to endure violence, displacement, and erasure—even as they insist on their right to shape their own political future. The West must now make its own position just as clear. Will it support a two-state solution with real enforcement mechanisms? Or will it support a single democratic state with equal rights?

These are the only two futures that uphold human dignity and comply with international law. Continued ambiguity is not neutrality—it is complicity in a status quo that denies millions of people the right to live freely, securely, and equally in their homeland.

Updated information about the resolution (11/18): UNSCR 2803

Key provisions of resolution 2803:

• Creates a new transitional authority, the so-called “Board of Peace” (BoP).

• A foreign, internationally recognized administrative body with legal international personality, tasked with governing, financing, and restructuring Gaza.

It will be chaired by Donald Trump, with other world leaders joining later.

• Authorizes a Temporary International Stabilization Force (ISF), a multinational force empowered to use “all necessary measures,” UN language for the use of force, to demilitarize Gaza.

The ISF will operate in close coordination with Israel and Egypt.

• Mandates comprehensive disarmament of all Palestinian armed factions: ISF will destroy military infrastructure, prevent reconstruction, permanently remove weapons from service, and enforce demilitarization as a condition for Israeli withdrawal.

• Allows Israel to maintain a surrounding “security perimeter”: Israeli occupation forces remain around Gaza until the ISF certifies that the enclave is free of “renewed terrorist threats.”

• Imposes an internationalized governance structure on Gaza: Daily administration will be run by a non-political, technocratic Palestinian committee, supervised by the US-chaired BoP, not an elected Palestinian authority.

• Gives the BoP control over humanitarian entry and reconstruction: Aid coordination shifts from UN-run mechanisms toward the BoP and its operational bodies.

• Extends the foreign administration until at least 31 December 2027: With the possibility of renewal by the Security Council; regular six-month reports are required.

• Ties Palestinian “statehood” to multiple conditions, including full PA reform, progress on disarmament, implementation of the Trump plan, and BoP-approved reconstruction benchmarks.

• Grants broad privileges and immunities to foreign personnel: Civilian and military actors operating under the BoP/ISF receive legal protections and operational freedom inside Gaza.

Notes:

• Resolution 2803 passed with 13 votes in favor, while Russia and China abstained.

• Algeria, despite public calls by Hamas to reject the resolution, ultimately voted for it and praised US leadership.

• Russia advanced its own counter-draft, then abstained, and afterward stated it “cannot support this decision,” exposing a clear contradiction.

• A broad bloc of Arab and Islamic states (including Qatar, Egypt, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Pakistan, Jordan, Turkiye) supported the US draft.

• Palestinian factions and rights groups unanimously condemned the resolution, calling it a scheme for foreign trusteeship, forced disarmament, and external control over the strip.

Hamas' Reaction to UNSC's Approval of the Plan

Statement by Hamas:

"In response to the UN Security Council's adoption of the US draft resolution on Gaza, the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) affirms the following:

This resolution does not meet the level of our Palestinian people’s political and humanitarian demands and rights, particularly in the Gaza Strip, which for two years endured a brutal genocidal war and unprecedented crimes committed by the terrorist occupation in front of the entire world—the effects and repercussions of which remain ongoing despite the declaration of the war’s end according to President Trump’s plan.

The resolution imposes an international guardianship mechanism on the Gaza Strip, which our people and their factions reject. It also imposes a mechanism to achieve the occupation’s objectives, which it failed to accomplish through its brutal genocide. Furthermore, this resolution detaches the Gaza Strip from the rest of the Palestinian geography and attempts to impose new realities away from our people’s principles and legitimate national rights, thereby depriving our people of their right to self-determination and the establishment of their Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital.

Resisting the occupation by all means is a legitimate right guaranteed by international laws and conventions. The weapons of the resistance are linked to the existence of the occupation, and any discussion of the weapons file must remain an internal national matter connected to a political path that ensures the end of the occupation, the establishment of the state [of Palestine], and self-determination.

Assigning the international force with tasks and roles inside the Gaza Strip, including disarming the resistance, strips it of its neutrality, and turns it into a party to the conflict in favor of the occupation. Any international force, if established, must be deployed only at the borders to separate forces, monitor the ceasefire, and must be fully under UN supervision. It must operate exclusively in coordination with official Palestinian institutions, without the occupation having any role in it, and work to ensure the flow of aid, without being turned into a security authority that pursues our people and their resistance.

Humanitarian aid, relief for the affected, and the opening of crossings are fundamental rights for our people in the Gaza Strip. Aid and relief operations cannot remain subject to politicization, blackmail, and subjugation to complex mechanisms amid the unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe created by the occupation, which requires expediting the opening of crossings and mobilizing all resources to address it through the UN and its agencies, foremost among them UNRWA.

We call on the international community and the Security Council to uphold the international law and humanitarian values, and to adopt resolutions that achieve justice for Gaza and the Palestinian cause, through the actual cessation of the brutal genocidal war on Gaza, reconstruction, ending the occupation, and enabling our people to self-determination and establish their independent state with Jerusalem as its capital."

Change is happening

This development at the UN Security Council—the world’s highest forum for maintaining global peace—comes at a moment when global public sentiment has shifted dramatically in the wake of the Gaza war. Across academia and broader civil society, awareness of the structural dynamics of the conflict has deepened, and calls for an urgent, justice-based resolution—rather than one shaped by political alliances or strategic convenience—are becoming more widespread. Reflecting this shift, the Oxford Union Society voted overwhelmingly, 265–113, to declare that Israel is a “greater threat to regional stability” than Iran, a result emblematic of how public understanding of the conflict has transformed in less than a year.

media review: Hundreds of writers boycott New York Times over Gaza coverage

media review: Hundreds of writers boycott New York Times over Gaza coverage

    Wednesday, October 29, 2025   No comments

As of yesterday Oct. 28, over 150 contributors, and the list is growing, to the New York Times have declared a boycott of its opinion section, accusing the paper of “biased coverage” of Israel’s war on Gaza.

In a joint letter cited by Middle East Eye, the writers said the Times “launders the US and Israel’s lies,” and called for an internal review of anti-Palestinian bias and a US arms embargo on Israel.

“Until the New York Times takes accountability for its biased coverage and commits to truthfully and ethically reporting on the US-Israeli war on Gaza, any putative ‘challenge’… is, in effect, permission to continue this malpractice,” the letter read.

Signatories include Rashida Tlaib, Greta Thunberg, Chelsea Manning, Sally Rooney, Rima Hassan, Elia Suleiman, Viet Thanh Nguyen, and Dave Zirin.

Russia’s Nuclear-Powered Missile Rewrites Global Security

Russia’s Nuclear-Powered Missile Rewrites Global Security

    Wednesday, October 29, 2025   No comments

When President Vladimir Putin announced that Russia’s Burevestnik had completed a 15-hour, 14,000-kilometer flight, the message was unmistakable: Moscow had achieved what others abandoned decades ago—a nuclear-powered cruise missile capable of circling the globe. By marrying compact nuclear propulsion with stealthy, low-altitude flight, Burevestnik promises endurance beyond any conventional weapon and an ability to bypass existing missile defenses.

The implications are stark. Strategically, Burevestnik upends the logic of mutual deterrence. Its unpredictable trajectories compress warning times and could destabilize crisis decision-making. Legally, the missile sits in a treaty gray zone, likely outside New START’s limits, potentially igniting a new arms race in exotic propulsion and sensor-evading systems. Environmentally, it revives long-dormant fears of nuclear contamination should a test or mission fail.

For Moscow, Burevestnik symbolizes technological defiance and ensures that no adversary can strike Russia without risking annihilation in return. For the rest of the world, it is a reminder that the nuclear age is far from over—and that deterrence is entering a more volatile, less predictable phase, where the line between deterrence and disaster grows dangerously thin.

Putin's recent statements on this matter:

Putin stated that the "Burevestnik" has unconditional advantages, Russia can be proud of the achievements of scientists

The nuclear power part of the "Burevestnik" is 1000 times smaller than the nuclear reactor of a nuclear submarine with comparable power, Putin said.

He added that the nuclear reactor installed in the missile starts within minutes and seconds.

The nuclear technologies used in the "Burevestnik" will be used in the lunar program, Putin stated.

In addition, according to him, Russia will be able to apply these technologies in the national economy.

...

Given the fact that this is a new development and no information is in the public domain, here is an analysis that might shed some light and insight.